Hon. Yakubu Ibrahim & Ors. V. Commissioner Of Police (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MARY U. PETER-ODILI. J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellants and two others were charged with the offences of Criminal Breach of Trust, Misappropriation, Aiding and Abetment and Assisting in the concealment of Stolen Property.

The prosecution called four witnesses and tendered exhibits including the various statements of the accused persons before the trial Magistrate and the statement of PW1, their star witness. Counsel to the Appellants made a no case submission at the close of the evidence for the prosecution. The no-case submission was overruled against the appellants, that of the other accused persons was upheld and they were discharged by the trial court.

Not being satisfied with the ruling of the trial Senior Magistrate Court, the Appellant appealed to the Lower Court on five (5) grounds of appeal. After hearing the appeal the High court in its appellate jurisdiction, Coram: Oniyangi and Oriji J.J; upheld the ruling of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The Appellants not satisfied with that judgment of the Lower Court have appealed to this Court after obtaining the leave of the Lower Court to appeal. The Appellants filed six (6) grounds of appeal challenging the judgment of the Lower Court.

I will recast the Grounds of Appeal while omitting the particulars and these are:-

GROUND ONE:

The learned Justices of the Lower Court erred in law and misdirected themselves by holding thus:-

“We are also of the view that in determining if a prima facie case has been established against the appellants, it is not for the Lower court to decide whether or not the respondent adduced ‘material evidence’ by way of receipts issued by the Hospital to substantiate the evidence that money was misappropriated by the 2nd appellant. It is sufficient that the respondent led evidence to the effect that money was misappropriated by the appellant who was a staff of PW3 in his hospital in charge of receiving money and keeping the money received.”

GROUND TWO:

The learned Justices of the Lower court erred in law and misdirected themselves in their efforts to distinguish the cases of ONAGORUWA V. STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (pt. 303) 49 and CHIANUGO V. STATE (2001) FWLR pt 74 P. 242 with present case.

GROUND THREE-

The learned Justices of the Lower court erred in law and misdirected themselves when they held thus:-

“These pieces of evidence undoubtedly show that prima facie, there is evidence of loss of money and the amount allegedly lost is ascertained or ascertainable”.

GROUND FOUR: